State authorities are legally obligated to comply with judicial directions from a Tribunal; failure to do so without valid stay or challenge undermines administrative accountability and the rule of law, justifying judicial intervention and the imposition of costs.

WP No. 8337 of 2023

Reserved on : 21.04.2026

Pronounced on : 05.06.2026

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.6082/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B).

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri J.S. Halashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

2. The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.06.2021 passed in Application No.6082/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against respondent No.1 alleging irregularities in certain activities and purchase of land in the name of the wife of respondent No.1 wife while he was working as First Division Assistant in the Taluk Office at Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumakuru District.

3.1 Pursuant thereto, the Lokayukta Police conducted investigation and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'). Based on the said report, disciplinary enquiry was entrusted against respondent No.1 under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (1957 Rules). An Inquiry Officer was appointed and articles of charge were framed.

3.2 The order entrusting the enquiry and the articles of charge were challenged by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, after discussing each of the articles of charge, set aside the order of entrustment and the articles of charge. However, the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority for re-examination of the entire complaint and to take appropriate action, if there was violation of any provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, including violations relating to submission of assets and liabilities statements or purchase of property in the name of the wife of respondent No.1 while working as Village Accountant.

4. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the report under Section 12(3) of the Act is based on a preliminary enquiry and prima facie material collected during the course of investigation. It is contended that the interference by the Tribunal at the stage of entrustment of enquiry and framing of articles of charge is premature.

4.1 It is further submitted that the Delinquent Government Officer (DGO) had sufficient opportunity to raise all defences in the disciplinary enquiry. Learned counsel submits that the DGO would have adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence adduced by the department and also to lead defence evidence. It is contended that the Tribunal, without examining the basis on which the entrustment order was made and the articles of charge were framed, prematurely and incorrectly interfered with the proceedings by examining the correctness or otherwise of the articles of charge.

5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Per contra, Sri J.S. Halashetti, learned counse